
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History Bay Area (Map, News) - Bay Area residents fed up with bumper-to-bumper traffic overwhelmingly support shelling out nearly $10 billion in state funds for a 200-mph train connecting the state’s major cities, a recent poll indicates.
A statewide survey of 800 registered voters shows that 67 percent of Bay Area residents plan to vote “yes” on a $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond in November, an approval rating higher than any other California region.
Statewide, 58 percent of voters approved of the bond measure, and 61 percent said “yes” in the Los Angeles and San Joaquin areas, the study said.
That Bay Area residents want state money set aside for high-speed trains is little surprise, seeing as recent studies place the region among the worst in the nation for traffic congestion and deteriorating roads, said Rod Diridon Sr., a member of the high-speed rail board.
“I think [the Bay Area has] the perfect storm of negatives,” Diridon said. “Our highway system, built back in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, is now falling apart and our population is growing rapidly. Traditional sources of revenue for transportation maintenance and development is declining.”
Diridon added that most Californians don’t realize the bond measure would not increase taxes. He said the bonds would derive from the state’s general fund.
Lawmakers and transportation officials alike say passing the bond measure is crucial to speeding up the start date for rail construction.
Former state Sen. Quentin Kopp, chairman of the rail board, said a November approval of the bond issue “will enable us to be in construction in 2009.”
Kopp called the recent poll “a cherry result” demonstrating increased awareness about the proposed 700-mile, $40 billion rail network that would be built over a 20-year period.
The bond measure has faced obstacles in the past. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has yet to sign on to the measure, twice supported legislation postponing it from going to the ballot.
But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the measure, spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said. She said there’s no indication at this point that any legislation will be proposed to pull it from the November ballot and added that it’s not unusual for Schwarzenegger to reserve an official opinion on a measure so far from the November election.

Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
|
People who read this also read:
|
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
4:40 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008 re: "Rail system speeds closer to a reality"
Report as inappropriate
1:13 AM MST on Fri., Apr. 4, 2008
re: "Rail system speeds closer to a reality"
Report as inappropriate
12:55 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "Rail system speeds closer to a reality"
Report as inappropriate
11:54 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "Rail system speeds closer to a reality"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008
re: "High-speed rail bond has strong Bay Area support"
Report as inappropriate
7:37 PM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "High-speed rail to run through South Bay"
Report as inappropriate
11:54 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "High-speed rail to run through South Bay"
Report as inappropriate
11:40 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "High-speed rail to run through South Bay"
Report as inappropriate
9:03 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 20, 2007
re: "High-speed rail’s path to come through the South Bay"
Report as inappropriate
Andre Peretti said:
Tom West is right. Long-haul airlines support HSR. It allows them to reach destinations for which they have no slots. All American airlines code-share with the French TGV. Why shouldn't they do in the U.S. what they have been doing in Europe for years? The ones that will suffer are the local airlines. They will have to be cheaper than the train but fuel prices will make it very difficult. Their flights mostly consist in taking off, then landing: the two kerosene-guzzling phases.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Tom West said:
In response to some earlier comments: Airlines will like this, because it will free up slots at airports for more lucrative long distance flights, rather than short-hop shuttle services. Don't believe me? In Texas, the airlines are the ones pushing for high-speed rail. In terms of cost: not building high-speed rail means spending double the amounyt on highway and airport improvments... which won't produce a profit.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
Build it. Build it yesterday.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Are the airlines just going to roll over for such a project while high speed rail pulls from their customer base? I'm thinking not.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Andre Peretti said:
As November approaches, you can expect special interests to spread tons of misinformation and the public will believe them and vote "NO". The most common argument: after being built high-speed-lines will have to be heavily subsidized. Yet, as the American public will never know, the French HSL made a $12 billion profit last year and paid a $300 million dividend to their majority stockholder, the French state. I remember Jebb Bush's reasons for killing the Florida project: "This is not France. We have good highways and airlines". Nobody remarked that highway and airport density is actually higher in France, and car ownership is the same. What the special interests know is that HSR has decimated short-haul airlines in France and that the remaining ones have to offer $20 flights to compete. Most projects to add lanes to highways and runways to airports have been abandoned. Do you really think this will be allowed to happen in the U.S.?
3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
My guess is we'll be lucky if this project is up and running by 2040 and nobody really has any idea what the final cost will be. if this project does actually come to fruition, i doubt the airlines are going to quietly sit by while their passengers are drawn off by bullet train service between s.f and l.a.
51 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SFRes said:
Bob: These trains will not be on existing tracks. They will be next to the existing tracks.
47 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bob said:
Its my understanding that they are going to run these bullet trains on existing tracks; won't work; after the collapse of the wall, East Germany had to replace all of its tracks to accommodate the German Bullet trains; so how can our bullet trains running at 250 mph; operate on old, existing tracks; and i think the costs will evenutally double because all of those public works in California do; look at the Bay Bridge
51 agree | 53 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
I can see it now said:
15 years before it will get built, 40 billion in money that should be spent elsewhere, and most likely 100 years behind in technology. And price = costless!
42 agree | 53 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree